Minimum Manned Moon Mission (4M)

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

Delta Vee: Lunar Orbit to Lunar Surface: 1.7 km/sec

Current electric ion thrusters produce a very low thrust. This results in the journey requiring a higher delta-v and an increase in time compared to a high thrust chemical rocket.

Nonetheless, the high specific impulse of electrical thrusters significantly reduce the cost of the flight in terms of payload.

For missions in the Earth-Moon system, journey times of days for human space flight is required. So, a five day journey each way requires 1.89 milligees to impart the required delta vee.

Delta Vee: Low Earth Orbit to Low Lunar Orbit: 8.0 km/sec (at 1.89 milli-gee)

So, we require 3.4 km/sec lunar lander, and 16.0 km/sec ion thruster that is capable of delivering 1.89 milli-gee or greater) With a vacuum exhaust velocity of 4.6 km/sec and a delta vee of 3.4 km/sec, the lunar lander stage totals 458 kg

458.0 kg total weight

239.3 kg - propellant weight

36.8 kg - LH - 1,002 mm diameter sphere
202.5 kg - LOX - 698 mm diameter sphere

68.7 kg - Inert weight

150.0 kg - Astronaut & Supplies


An ion thruster with a 54 km/sec exhaust speed and a 16.0 km/sec delta vee - with 8.0 km/sec delta vee carrying 458.0 kg of payload out to the moon, and 8.0 km/sec delta vee carrying 218.7 kg back to Earth, we have;

For the Return Journey:

307.0 kg - total weight

42.3 kg - propellant weight (inbound)

49.0 kg - Inert weight - Ion Stage

68.7 kg - Inert weight - Lunar Stage

150.0 kg - Astronaut & Supplies


For Outbound Journey

637.1 kg - total weight at LEO

87.8 kg - propellant weight (outbound)
42.3 kg - propellant weight (inbound)
49.0 kg - Inert weight - Ion Stage
68.7 kg - Inert weight - Lunar Stage
239.3 kg - Lunar Landing Propellant
150.0 kg - Astronaut & Supplies

The ion thruster must produce 1.2 kgf thrust. With a 54 km/sec exhaust velocity this implies a 218.7 milligram/second mass flow rate through the engine. This implies 320,000 Watt solar panel. At 20,000 Watts/kg this means the concentrating collector masses 16 kg and the ion stage masses 33 kg. Four concentrators each 10.3 meters in diameter powers a small ion stage.

It takes 5 days to boost out and 3 days to boost back with the ion rocket.

This stage is delivered to orbit with an oblique wing aircraft with a scramjet variable flow engine fueled by liquid hydrogen.

Take Off Weight: 2,830.6 kg
Propellant Weight: 1,556.4 kg
Inert Weight: 637.1 kg
Payload Weight: 637.1 kg

Span........ 12.8 m
Area........ 20.8 m2
Aspect Ratio 8.83
Root Chord.. 3.31 m
Tip Chord... 0.72 m

The external combustion engine produces a maximum of 795 kgf thrust and weighs 100 kg.

The pilot lies prone in the root of the oblique flying wing, and is surrounded by LH2. She/He wears a biosuit with MEMS based life support, powered by LOX/LH2 during launch, and during lunar operations, while powered by sunlight during lunar transit.

The vehicle takes off horizontally from a conventional runway and accelerates to orbital speed.

https://fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp02.jpg

On orbit the astronaut exits the wing, which remains in LEO, with his lunar lander stage and ion stage. There s/he deploys four 10.3 meter concentrators and focuses them on the Sun. This powers up the ion engine and the astronaut boosts to the Moon entering low lunar orbit after five days. The chemical lunar stage settles on to the lunar surface, leaving the ion stage in lunar orbit. The astronaut then explores the lunar surface for up to a week. The chemical lunar stage returns to low lunar orbit, rendezvous and docks with the ion stage, and returns to Earth in 3 days travel, entering low earth orbit, rendezvous and docking with the flying wing, which then enters the Earth's atmosphere, and glides to a landing on Earth!

A 175 kW terrestrial power source operating over 15 days processes 14,338.8 litres of DI water into the necessary hydrogen and oxygen for the trip for each vehicle at a cost of $18,900.

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue - supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

Another $5 million for ancillary services, earn significant profits besides..

With 3D print technology and other advanced technology, this sort of thing can be expected to arise in the next five to ten years.

Given the state of the US space program, this will likely be developed in some other nation, not the US going forward.

Which is too damned bad.

In article ,
says...

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit
equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

....

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two
tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost
of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue
- supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per
vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

So, we start with an imaginary space suit which can be worn continuously
for 15 days, stick it into an imaginary scissor wing vehicle powered by
imaginary hypersonic air breathing engines, and ignore *all* development
costs for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware
when coming up with an imaginary price to fly people to the moon for an
absurdly low cost.

I call bull****.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:01:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit
equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

...

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two
tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost
of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue
- supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per
vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

So, we start with an imaginary space suit

Like many stupid people you have trouble distinguishing between imagination (the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful) and imaginary (existing only in the imagination)!

Fact is, the spacesuit I describe is not imaginary at all!

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spa.../holschuh.html

which can be worn continuously

Only an ignoramus believes the Apollo suits couldn't be worn continuously for 15 days.

Anyone knowledgeable of the technology of that era knows that in 1964 April 21 the basic rules for Apollo space suit operation was established.

Anyone not profoundly stupid knows these were achieved with the Apollo A7L suit.

Officials from ASPO, Flight Crew Operations Directorate, Crew Systems Division, and Hamilton Standard established the basic ground rules at that time for the Apollo space suit operation as follows:

1) At least one crewman would wear his space suit at all times.

2) All three crewmen wear their suits continuously during launch through translunar injection, lunar operations, and reentry.

3) The three crewmen have the ability to remain suited at all times throughout the mission, although they could remove the suits during translunar and transearth phases when conditions warranted.

4) The crew must have the ability to return from any point in the mission in pressurized suits.

5) Two men in the CM must be able to don their suits within five minutes if not already suited.

The Operations Planning Division reported at that time that these rules required no modifications to the suit and only minor changes to the environmental control system back in 1964.

for 15 days,

The same duration achieved by the A7L suit in 1964.

stick it into an imaginary scissor wing vehicle

Only an ignoramus believes oblique winged vehicles don't exist that clearly do.

An oblique wing aircraft was built in a few months by Burt Rutan for less than a quarter million dollars. It flew for three years before it was retired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqZDHBe2KlE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxgg0BXMoqU

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/earl...llows_zha.html

powered by
imaginary hypersonic air breathing engines,

Only an ignoramus doesn't know that hypersonic air breathing engines exist and that in 1964, Dr. Frederick S. Billig and Dr. Gordon L. Dugger submitted a patent application for a supersonic combustion ramjet based on Billig's Ph.D. thesis at that time.

This patent was delayed for 17 years and finally issued in 1981 following the removal of an order of secrecy imposed by the USAF.

Following Billig's patents being released tests were made in Australia in 1981 under the guidance of Professor Ray Stalker.

A Billig style scramjet using axisymmetric hydrogen-fueled dual-mode combustion was flown by Russia in 1991. That's 24 years ago!

and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/

when coming up with an imaginary price to fly people to the moon for an
absurdly low cost.

The prices quoted fill the capacity being built and generate significant profits besides.

Five days out, three days back, two days on the moon, one week turn around, a single ship puts 26 persons on the moon and brings them back every year.

Six such ships built after the first one, are used to train tour guides.

Two tour guides and four clients per moon trip done with a fleet of six ships - once every two weeks with one week off - this is 25 paying trips per year.

The company reserves one trip donated to four lucky graduate students who submit a worthy scientific programs that are reviewed by cooperating university teams - for flight each year - to do research on the moon - and these are flown to the moon and back - with all flight training - for free - once per year.

This puts 100 paying clients and 4 other people on the moon each year, and 6 guides 8 or 9 trips per year each, and returns them to Earth. At $12.5 million for each paying client, that's $1.25 billion per year revenue. Cost is $2.5 million per trip, once guide bonuses and other costs are paid and profits are $10 million per trip - earning $1 billion per year for the tour company.

This money is invested in larger vehicles and in payloads brought to the moon to increase tour demand.

I call bull****.

Of course you do. Which proves you're an ignoramus and a fool.


Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Oxygen from the air costs more than LOX.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:01:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit
equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

...

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two
tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost
of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue
- supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per
vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

So, we start with an imaginary space suit

Like many stupid people you have trouble distinguishing between imagination (the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful) and imaginary (existing only in the imagination)!

Fact is, the spacesuit I describe is not imaginary at all!

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spa.../holschuh.html

which can be worn continuously

Only an ignoramus believes the Apollo suits couldn't be worn continuously for 15 days.

Anyone knowledgeable of the technology of that era knows that in 1964 April 21 the basic rules for Apollo space suit operation was established.

Anyone not profoundly stupid knows these were achieved with the Apollo A7L suit.

Officials from ASPO, Flight Crew Operations Directorate, Crew Systems Division, and Hamilton Standard established the basic ground rules at that time for the Apollo space suit operation as follows:

1) At least one crewman would wear his space suit at all times.

2) All three crewmen wear their suits continuously during launch through translunar injection, lunar operations, and reentry.

3) The three crewmen have the ability to remain suited at all times throughout the mission, although they could remove the suits during translunar and transearth phases when conditions warranted.

4) The crew must have the ability to return from any point in the mission in pressurized suits.

5) Two men in the CM must be able to don their suits within five minutes if not already suited.

The Operations Planning Division reported at that time that these rules required no modifications to the suit and only minor changes to the environmental control system back in 1964.

for 15 days,

The same duration achieved by the A7L suit in 1964.

stick it into an imaginary scissor wing vehicle

Only an ignoramus believes oblique winged vehicles don't exist that clearly do.

An oblique wing aircraft was built in a few months by Burt Rutan for less than a quarter million dollars. It flew for three years before it was retired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqZDHBe2KlE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxgg0BXMoqU

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/earl...llows_zha.html

powered by
imaginary hypersonic air breathing engines,

Only an ignoramus doesn't know that hypersonic air breathing engines exist and that in 1964, Dr. Frederick S. Billig and Dr. Gordon L. Dugger submitted a patent application for a supersonic combustion ramjet based on Billig's Ph.D. thesis at that time.

This patent was delayed for 17 years and finally issued in 1981 following the removal of an order of secrecy imposed by the USAF.

Following Billig's patents being released tests were made in Australia in 1981 under the guidance of Professor Ray Stalker.

A Billig style scramjet using axisymmetric hydrogen-fueled dual-mode combustion was flown by Russia in 1991. That's 24 years ago!

and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/

when coming up with an imaginary price to fly people to the moon for an
absurdly low cost.

The prices quoted fill the capacity being built and generate significant profits besides.

Five days out, three days back, two days on the moon, one week turn around, a single ship puts 26 persons on the moon and brings them back every year.

Six such ships built after the first one, are used to train tour guides.

Two tour guides and four clients per moon trip done with a fleet of six ships - once every two weeks with one week off - this is 25 paying trips per year.

The company reserves one trip donated to four lucky graduate students who submit a worthy scientific programs that are reviewed by cooperating university teams - for flight each year - to do research on the moon - and these are flown to the moon and back - with all flight training - for free - once per year.

This puts 100 paying clients and 4 other people on the moon each year, and 6 guides 8 or 9 trips per year each, and returns them to Earth. At $12.5 million for each paying client, that's $1.25 billion per year revenue. Cost is $2.5 million per trip, once guide bonuses and other costs are paid and profits are $10 million per trip - earning $1 billion per year for the tour company.

This money is invested in larger vehicles and in payloads brought to the moon to increase tour demand.

I call bull****.

Of course you do. Which proves you're an ignoramus and a fool.


Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Oxygen from the air costs less than LOX.

In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Interesting that you say insane things and then attribute them to others. Its called psychological projection. Its an indicator that you need help! lol.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Well, 200 kg of inert materials at $20,000 per kg totals $4 million. Just saying.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...as-launch-site

Bell Aerospace patented a ground effect machine back in 1964 to operate as landing gear in a transport aircraft. The 400 foot span flying wing SST described here;

https://youtu.be/Vxgg0BXMoqU

Would use a ground effect system to leave a sea side port and take off horizontally over the ocean, like an Eraknoplane and climb skyward! It would deliver 740 tons to LEO which leaves the craft and unfurls four four 300 meter diameter solar collectors that deliver 150 tons of useful load to the lunar surface and returns it to Earth!

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Interesting that you say insane things and then attribute them to others. Its called psychological projection. Its an indicator that you need help! lol.

I'm not the one who is claiming he is going to design and 3D print a
spaceship. Given your track record for such a thing, I won't hold my
breath.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Well, 200 kg of inert materials at $20,000 per kg totals $4 million. Just saying.

Raw materials does not a vehicle make.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...cket-lab-eyes-
birdlings-flat-canterbury-as-launch-site

That's a conventional launch vehicle which has not flown. I don't see
how that supports your notion of a 3D printed, air breathing,
hypersonic, scissor wing, orbital launch vehicle. Care to add anymore
technologies to the list to increase the risk further?

Bell Aerospace patented a ground effect machine back in 1964 to operate as landing gear in a transport aircraft. The 400 foot span flying wing SST described here;

https://youtu.be/Vxgg0BXMoqU

Would use a ground effect system to leave a sea side port and take off horizontally over the ocean, like an Eraknoplane and climb skyward! It would deliver 740 tons to LEO which leaves the craft and unfurls four four 300 meter diameter solar collectors that deliver 150 tons of useful load to the lunar surface and returns it to Earth!

Because ground effect vehicles have *so* much in common with hypersonic
air breathing launch vehicles. Mook says this should be *easy* to
incorporate into the design... :-/

Good luck with that 3D printed, HTHL, ground effect launched, air
breathing, hypersonic, scissor wing, orbital launch vehicle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Interesting that you say insane things and then attribute them to others. Its called psychological projection. Its an indicator that you need help! lol.

I'm not the one who is claiming he is going to design and 3D print a
spaceship. Given your track record for such a thing, I won't hold my
breath.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

I said 3D printing and personal supercomputing makes designing and building spacecraft easier only because its true. You're the one who takes such statements and personalises them in crazy ways. Despite the fact that its old news by the time I say it here, you *still* gripe about it. Which is a reflection of your stupidity.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/3-d-pri...hot-fire-tests

http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/...draco-thruster

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...rocket-engine/

http://3dprint.com/60132/3d-printed-...ngine-project/

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/

http://www.3ders.org/articles/201310...et-engine.html

http://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2014/9/...next-spacesuit

http://www.draper.com/newsItems.html

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10....69-9_79#page-1

Companies, like Microfabrica, have the ability to produce micro-scale rockets, pumps and sensors, integrated with surface mount electronics. This produces propulsive skin that is quite remarkable.

Propulsive skin has the ability to draw force vectors along its surface the same way HDTV screens draw colour images! With arrays of rockets that have 1000 to 1 thrust to weight! Incorporated in this skin is also an array of sensors, and other devices that give a spacecraft tremendous flexibility and performance.

This is the future! A 15 kg biosuit outperforms traditional spacesuits. Yet is equipped with thermal protection, life support, solar power collection, propulsive arrays, and so forth.

Woven into the structure of the suit is 2 square meters of solar collector generating up to 300 Watts of electrical energy in space. This is enough to power the suit and keep the air and water fresh and the wearer at the right temperature - indefinitely.

A propulsive skin that produces 50 psi of pressure (350 kilopascal) and weighs less than 1 ounce, requires only 5.5 square inches, 14 sq cm, only 2% of the total suit area, to lift the wearer with 750 kg (1,650 lbs) of force. Hanging LOX/LH2 tanks on to the suit, that themselves have the ability to propel themselves through space in response to signals from the suit, provide a seamless easy to use method of landing and take off from the moon.

An all rocket system with a 150 kg payload, requires;

3.1 km/sec - Lunar Surface to Earth Return
3.1 km/sec - TLI to Lunar Surface
3.1 km/sec - LEO to TLI

With a 4.3 km/sec exhaust speed this requires

3,943.8 kg on LEO. Apportioned as follows;

3943.8 - Total
2025.9 - Propellant (TLI stage)
591.6 - Inert Weight (TLI stage)
681.3 - Propellant Lunar Surface Stage
198.9 - Inert Weight Lunar Surface Stage
229.1 - Propellant Lunar Return Stage
66.9 - Inert Weight Lunar Surface Stage


With a 54 km/sec ion rocket, as stated above, this reduces the mass needed at LEO to less than 800 kg!

We start again with delta fee. Note the delta vee for an ion rocket of low thrust requires far more speed than a chemical booth - due to the Oberth effect;

8 km/sec - LEO to LLO
1.6 km/sec - LLO to Lunar Surface
1.6 km/sec - Lunar Surface to LLO
8 km/sec - LLO to LEO

An ion engine imparting 16 km/sec to a payload with an engine that has a 54 km/sec exhaust speed requires 25.64% of its take off weight to be propellant. With a 15% structure fraction this leaves 59.35% payload.

Now, 3.2 km/sec imparted to a vehicle with a 4.6 km/sec exhaust speed requires 50.12% propellant fraction. Subtracting 15% structure obtains 34.87% payload for the lunar lander.

So, starting with 150 kg again, we have 430.1 kg lunar lander which carries 215.6 kg propellant in a 64.5 kg structure. The 430.1 kg lander in turn is part of a 724.6 kg stage that carries 185.8 kg in 108.6 kg structure. Allowing 7 days for the transit the 185.8 kg of propellant consumes propellant at a rate of 307.2 milligrams per second. This requires 448 kilowatts of jet power. At 20 kW per kg this requires 22.4 kg of solar panels.

A solar powered stage orbited in a sun synchronous polar orbit that is in constant sunlight, is ideal. The increase in radial distance is nearly linear - 4,645 km increase in altitude per hour - about 2/3 of an Earth radii per hour - as the spacecraft winds its way out a spiral orbit and then winds into another spiral orbit around the moon.

A polar orbit has the potential to rocket through the van allen belt while missing the intense equatorial region altogether! This is very similar to the way Apollo handled the problem;

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/v...an-allen-belts